Its a hard one to call... I'll give you that.
I reckon let them play on in that game as usual, but warn them that if they keep making alliances based on real life trust, they'll be punished in some way.

I'd say the same thing - I've been in situations where I couldn't connect and I've asked an ally to enter moves for me. But I did this for *one* phase, and I expected him to make the moves I suggested.

It ended up being moot as he didn't log on in time, but that's another story ;)

Coming from the perspective of someone who is new to this site but has played a lot of FTF games, this seems to be against the spirit of the game if not the rules as laid out in the FAQ. A large part of this game is about deception, sometimes that is lying and sometimes just well executed misdirection, but the game is always about seven players attempting to best one another without "cheating". Almost an honor amongst thieves. It doesn't matter if the players drew two powers that can roll the map or two powers that are on opposite ends of the board, the thought process of working with your friend without the possibility of a stab at some point because they are your friend is wrong in my book. It basically brings the game to the level of a tactical exercise with a small sprinkling of strategy. The whole bit about Player A putting in Player B's orders doesn't bother me, as that is what friends are for. (That is of course assuming that had Player B planned a really great stab on Player A, that Player A would have entered those orders as well anyway and bit the bullet) If I were a moderator, that is a tough call. I don't believe a severe punishment is warranted, but the other five players are effectively punished if no consequences are disbursed.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the game is already pretty advanced, and they seem to be headed for a solo by one of them or a 17/17 split.

I would say that they need some sort of discipline. And i would say that the veteran player should be the one who gets disciplined. He should know better, and in that situation should have let his friend figure out how to get connection back and so forth. it's part of the game. i've missed moves cause i was out of town etc.
I'm not sure how I would punish him but he needs a little bit, he needs to be an example to his friend that you don't just give your armies to a person in the same game as you.

especially cause it is late in the game giving an ally your armies means that who ever that is could have like 30 armies under his command, which isn't fair.

This is interesting, so I'll take a stab at it. There seem to be several fouls at work here, but most of them are minor.

1. Two friends playing together with strangers - did they disclose this fact? If not, they should have.

2. Unbreakable alliance - possibly forged before the game. If this was the case, probably guilty of meta-gaming, if not in the strictest sense. This, btw, is the reason I dislike playing with groups of friends -- even my own.

3. Player A logged in as Player B. Here's where it gets a bit sticky. IF Player B had asked a neutral third party player to log in for him and make the moves, I assume it would have been fine. So, the issue is that Player A did it instead of anybody else. Here's my question. What if Player A had NOT done those moves as asked? Win at all costs, right?
But he did enter the moves correctly and honestly, so I guess that, really, there's no foul here ... right? I'm confusing myself a bit on this point.

I guess if it was me, and I was a moderator, I would post on the global chat exactly what you have discovered here, but there was no clear rule-breaking going on. Also, to warn A & B that if they want to play together again, they would be required to announce that they are friends in RL. Hard to enforce perhaps, but at least give them the warning.

And also maybe have them rethink the whole unbreakable alliance thing. It's makes things less fun for everybody involved.

I was in a game about six months ago where the exact same thing happened. The people involved were honest players who really thought there was nothing wrong. However, I disagreed, since I had been sending press to both players, and there were clear *ahem* inconsistencies in the two streams of messages I was sending. In our case, the "offending" players realised what they had done once the other players pointed it out, and agreed to cancel the game.

I would suggest the same solution in this case.

If you're going to share passwords or in any way play more than one account on the same computer you should really always let the mod team know about it, we use software here that will detect this sort of thing eventually

Well, I don´t think letting someone playing on the same game sit your account is a good choice.
I have a friend to sit my account for a few days when I travel last September, and we are playing together in a game (and everybody on this game knows we are friends, but they are ok with that). On this specific game I asked a pause, because it will be unfair to let him enter orders for me.
So, this two players should at least get a warning about his behaviour, and if the other players feel this alliance is somewhat pre-arranged the game should be canceled.

I've let someone sit my account when we were in the same game I'll admit that, but that was well before pausing and we were deep into the endgame period of play: neither could afford to stab the other as then the enemy alliance would kill us off.
Personally, if there was no unfair play due to it, the sitting isn't a big issue to me. Much more important is whether they formed their alliance due to their friendship or for game reasons.

I think the sitting is an issue, and I will be really upset if that happens on a game where I am playing. Because it´s unfair, you can be 100% sure what the other player will do, and even if you really trust one ally you can never got that 100%. And you will also have acesso to all private conversation from the other players, which is even worst on my opinion.

Agreed. I agree with Xapi's response as well, and also agree that you could justify a much stricter reaction, although his was balanced and just.

Xapi, you're a mod and don't know that their actions were most definitely metagaming? Metagaming is not just cross gaming. It means cringing in anything from outside the game. They brought there freindship in with an unbreakable alliance. They are metas and should be removed from the game. Perios.

Too many typos to correct.

Meta-gaming means using any information from outside the game.

in some game (for example an rpg) this is very poor. You are playing a characater who does not know certain game-world things that you as a player do know. Or in a computer rpg you may reload before a given encounter and make choices based on what you know the computer will do.

In diplomacy it is not that simple. If i know someone is sick and unable to enter orders is it meta-gaming to change my attack plans (where i assume they will NMR) Cross game agreements is a definite example of meta-gaming, because you are in two games using information from another game (outside of that individual game, when those games are linked in a league it becomes and odd case of everyone specifically playing the meta-game of the league and taking into account what people are doing in those other games - this is fine because they all agreed to play in a league and have access to the same information about the meta-game IE the rules of the league)

There are other examples. I don't think you should have to reveal that you are RL friends with someone. It is impossible to tell the difference between a new player who has developed a trusting relationship with their neighbour, and RL friends who aren't willing to stab each other. There are many reasons to try winning a 17/17 split (and though i think most of them a flawed in a single game) A new player can easily argue that they were happy to survive to a two-way draw.

When one player loses net access a pause would usually be more appropriate, however in some games a pause is worse that a draw (because it kills the game and when one of two players come back they win by default) In the case of password sharing/finding a sitter, it is extremely inappropriate to get another player in the game to sit for you. They have a conflict of interest, and even if they don't stab you right in the eye (and claim they made a mistake in the orders they entered... or something equally duplicitus) - i think sanction is neccessary - however i can imagine a situation where i had another player/friend login from my computer (or me be in their house and need to enter my orders) I could at that time go to the effort of finding a proxy to mask my ip address, but i would more than likely show up attacking my friends while using his computer to do it...

There is a reason why an alliance can't declare victory when they collectively control a majority of the supply centres. (though that might make an interesting variant, and it should result in a ppsc type reward for all the players especially the 16 sc player who was going to win and the opposition who were too lazy / divided to stop the leader...)

Public humiliation. And a warning to never do it again. :-)

" Xapi, you're a mod and don't know that their actions were most definitely metagaming? "

Yes, I do know they are metagaming.

My question is, what would you have done if you had to make a ruling on this matter.

The options here would be:

Warning
Banning
Stripping points
Cancelling the game
Any combination of the previous.
Anything else you come up with.

I'd probably want the game canceled if I were in it... It probably doesn't deserve a ban.

But I'm serious about the public humiliation. I don't feel as though you are under any obligation to keep their names hidden...

Warn and cancel game as it was clearly made lopsided by their cheating. After all, they didn't have to protect from each other whereas their opposition did.

Amazingly, I agree with rlumley - public humilitation. Call them out and name names.

Public Humilliation, I hadn't thought of that :P

Amazingly, what I did was exactly what Draugnar said. The warn and cancel, not the humilliation.

I'd go for some kind of restoritive justice. Maybe they should be asked (that is a proper asked, ie they may decline without santion) to do something good for the community, the mods could allocate them to some CDs where other players have been banned or they could spend a week babysitting in the summer holidays. Or maybe they could be asked to correct all spelling mistakes in draugnar's forum posts, I'm sure the community could suggest any number of ways that minor offenders could be asked to perform some kind of task that benefits us all.

Community service. I love it. :-)

Maniac, you try typing accurately with a laptop balanced on one knee. :-)

@drrrrrrrrragjalkdc - ohh yse I niw sea how diffixult thse can be

Descktops Я K00L

LOL. That made my day, both of you.

Yep. Along with public humiliation there's my personal choice which is "strong suggestion" that they explain themselves to the nation, or tell others it was them and won't do it again. I'm not sure though, he has closed the game so you could fairly argue they've gained nothing.

They shouldn't have to explain themselves to the "nation" but they should probably agree to cancel the game. Why? Because the fact that there was a password sharing element of trust going on, it probably wasn't a fair alliance. But if the known player gets his name smeared that would be unfair.

Has Xapi closed the game? Because I think thats probably enough.

So when will the game be closed? I agree with Xapi's decision, and if anything I think that the experienced player should be more harshly punished. His attitude is not one that enhances the quality of play of the site.

"Has Xapi closed the game?"

I've paused it to leave it open for a couple of days with a message so everyone knows what happened, I'll cancel it tomorrow.